Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District, Highland
Bradley Stallman, Leesburg, Ohio, Pro se Appellant.
A. Snyder, Markesbery & Richardson, Co., LPA, Cincinnati,
Ohio, for Appellees Midwest Buildings and Supply Co.
Timothy B. Spille, Reminger Co., L.P.A., Cincinnati, Ohio,
for Appellees Donald and Virginia Warner.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
MATTHEW W. MCFARLAND, JUDGE.
This is an appeal from a Highland County Court of Common
Pleas summary judgment in favor of Appellees. Appellees
Donald and Virginia Warner hired Appellee Midwest Buildings
and Supply Co. to construct a building. Appellant Bradley
Stallman, an employee of Midwest Buildings and Supply Co.,
was injured during the construction of the Warners'
building. Appellant sued Midwest Buildings and Supply Co.,
its employees, and the Warners for his injuries. The trial
court granted summary judgment to both Midwest Buildings and
Supply Co. and the Warners. After review of the record, we
overrule Appellant's assignments of error on appeal and
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Appellant filed a complaint against Appellee Midwest
Buildings and Supply Co.; Midwest Buildings and Supply
Co.'s owner, Larry Brubaker; Midwest Buildings and Supply
Co. employees, including Larry Maynard, and others
(collectively hereinafter referred to as "MBS");
and Donald and Virginia Warner, the owners of the premises at
1939 Elmville Road, Leesburg, Ohio, in Highland County (the
Appellant alleged he was an employee of MBS and was injured
while constructing a building for the Warners at the
construction site. The complaint alleged that Appellant,
Larry Maynard, and other MBS employees were erecting a wall,
when one of the MBS employees released his grip, which caused
the wall to fall on Appellant and caused him to suffer a
severe leg injury.
Count one of the complaint alleged MBS, its named employees,
and the Warners were negligent in failing to protect
Appellant from injury by not properly securing the wall
during the installation, etc. The complaint alleged that as a
proximate result of this negligence Appellant suffered a
Count two of the complaint alleged MBS employees were liable
to Appellant through the doctrine of respondent superior
because they were employees of MBS.
Count three of the complaint alleged an employer intentional
tort against MBS was the proximate cause of Appellant's
injury. The complaint alleged MBS knew or should have known
that MBS employees were under the influence of drugs or
alcohol that affected their work, that there was an
insufficient workforce to safely perform the construction,
that there was no safety equipment that secured the walls,
and that there was insufficient equipment on the site to
prevent the wall from falling. And, as a proximate result of
these intentional acts, Appellant was seriously injured.
Finally, count four of the complaint alleged the Warners were
liable to Appellant because they managed, controlled, and/or
supervised the construction site. The complaint alleged that
the Warners' failure to inspect the construction site
created dangerous conditions and that they failed to warn of
these conditions, thereby proximately causing Appellant's
MBS answered, asserting, among other defenses, that the
doctrines of intentional tort and Bureau of Workers'
Compensation claims barred Appellant's complaint.
The Warners answered, asserting, among other defenses, that
Appellant's injuries were "the sole, proximate or
substantial result of an intervening and superseding act of
negligence over which [the Warners] had no control or
responsibility" resulting in a "complete bar to
plaintiffs recovery herein."
Both MBS and the Warners filed motions for summary judgment.
Appellant filed a memorandum contra to both motions for
The trial court issued a decision and entry granting summary
judgment to both MBS and the Warners. It is from this
judgment that Appellant, now acting pro se, filed his appeal,
which asserts seven assignments of error.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING ON BOTH SUMMARY JUDGMENTS.
TRIAL COURT NEGLECTED TO CONSIDER MEDICAL IMPEDIMENTS, AND
THE FACT THAT PARTIES WERE IN MEDIATION UNTIL NOV. 26, 3 DAYS
BEFORE BREIF [SIC] COULD BE SUBMITTED, WITH MORE